googologywikiaorg-20200223-history
Talk:Jonathan Bowers
I feel a burning temptation to add this to the article: :"Although he is a major pioneer in googology, he still manages to blow our feeble minds apart with his 100-dimensional hypercubes." Sadly, this isn't encyclopedic. FB100Z • talk • 01:15, March 4, 2011 (UTC) :hello past self, advice for you: you aren't being funny -- ve 20:04, October 10, 2015 (UTC) ::Hello, advice for you: you aren't fun -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 00:43, February 12, 2019 (UTC) His number rocks. Jiawhein \(a\)\(l\) 13:09, May 2, 2013 (UTC) Cloudy! so great that you came online! Jiawhein \(a\)\(l\) 10:41, May 18, 2013 (UTC) He should know these! Hellillion: 10^ (3x10^(3x10^3quattuordecillion) +3) (Based on the word "Hell") Heaventillion: 10^ (3x10^(3x10^3quindecillion) +3) (Based on the word "Heaven") Endillion: 10^ (3x10^(3x10^3sexdecillion) +3) (Based on the word "End") Jamiem2001 (talk) 16:33, October 10, 2015 (UTC) Here's how I would do these numbers. Wektillion - 10^ 3nonillion3 (Based off of the Wekto- prefix)(Formerly Vecillion) Dekillion - 10^ 3decillion3 (Based off of the Deka- prefix)(Formerly Mecillion) Unecillion 10^ 3undecillion3 Duecillion - 10^ 3duodecillion3 Trecillion - 10^ 3tredecillion3 Tetrecillion - 10^ 3quattuordecillion3 Pentecillion - 10^ 3quindecillion3 Hexecillion - 10^ 3sexdecillion3 Heptecillion - 10^ 3septendecillion3 Octecillion - 10^ 3octodecillion3 Ennecillion - 10^ 3novemdecillion3 Icosillion - 10^ 3vigintillion3 Triacontillion - 10^ 3trigintillion3 Tetracontillion - 10^ 3quadragintillion3 Pentacontillion - 10^ 3quinquagintillion3 Hexacontillion - 10^ 3sexagintillion3 Heptacontillion - 10^ 3septuagintillion3 Octacontillion - 10^ 3octogintillion3 Ennacontillion - 10^ 3nonagintillion3 Hectillion - 10^ 3centillion3 Killillion - 10^ 3millillion3 Megillion - 10^ 3micrillion3 Gigillion - 10^ 3nanillion3 Terillion - 10^ 3picillion3 Petillion - 10^ 3femtillion3 Exillion - 10^ 3attillion3 Zettillion - 10^ 3sextillion3 Yottillion - 10^ 3septillion3 Xennillion - 10^ 3xonillion3 Wekillion - 10^ 3wektillion3 (Based off of the Weka- prefix)(Formerly Dakillion) Marillion - 10^ 3dekillion3 (Formerly Hendillion) Ikillion - 10^ 3icosillion3 Trakillion - 10^ 3triacontillion3 Tekillion - 10^ 3tetracontillion3 Pekillion - 10^ 3pentacontillion3 Exakillion - 10^ 3hexacontillion3 Zakillion - 10^ 3heptacontillion3 Yotillion - 10^ 3octacontillion3 Nekillion - 10^ 3ennecontillion3 Hotillion - 10^ 3hectillion3 Kalillion - 10^ 3killillion3 Mejillion - 10^ 3megillion3 Gijillion - 10^ 3gigillion3 Astillion - 10^ 3terillion3 Lunillion - 10^ 3petillion3 Fermillion - 10^ 3exillion3 Jovillion - 10^ 3zettillion3 Solillion - 10^ 3yottillion3 Betillion - 10^ 3xennillion3 Glocillion - 10^ 3wekillion3 Gaxillion - 10^ 3dekillion3 IDK what to do with the rest that are between and after these numbers because I'm a new googologist. Jamiem2001 (talk) 21:48, October 22, 2015 (UTC) Question The article states "Bowers has coined a total of 352 googologisms as of Feburary 2016, which was a record, until it was surpassed by Sbiis Saibian, another famous googologist." Where is the line drawn between coining and generating? Denis Maksudov's made a ton of numbers but it was largely automated. Saibian named each of his individually, so there was a conscious effort for each one. Should there be two records then dealing with conscious effort then automated effort? Where is the line drawn? If this is an encyclopedia it needs to be precise. Eleor (talk) 23:55, November 5, 2019 (UTC) : Here, I coin ｷｪ…ｪ (\(n\) ｪ's), which means \(n\), for each \(n \in \mathbb{N}\). For example, ｷ is 0, ｷｪ is 1, and ｷｪｪ is 2. : Nobody will regard me as the greatest namer due to the lack of effort. How should we reject it? Since natural languages are not formal languages based on theory, such a non-theoretical statement is not formalisable, unlike mathematical statements such as comparison of theoretically well-defined numbers. Namely, it depends on the common sense. For example, where is the line drawn for precise in your context? (I am not kidding, and I actually regard your opinion as a good point. We sometimes need to remember the ambiguity of natural languages when we talk about non-theoretic statements.) : p-adic 00:53, November 6, 2019 (UTC) ::That makes sense, what you said about common sense. I suppose by precise I meant was there ever a blog post or 'official' location where various people have submitted their own lists of numbers to have it evaluated as to who made the most? 352 sounds like it would be correct, but right on the front page of Saibian's site there's this: ::Saibian made at least 3263 numbers before February 2016, so, I do believe Bowers had that record at one point but when exactly, because it wasn't February 2016, by then Saibian had 10 times as many numbers in his regiments. Eleor (talk) 01:10, November 6, 2019 (UTC) ::: I did not know the time series of their contributions. I guess that there are three possibilities: # Bowers is currently actually considered as a record holder at the time for some explicit reasons, which I do not know. # Bowers was actually considered as a record holder at that time, and hence the author of the description in the article wrote the historical fact that many googologists considered. # Bowers has not been actually considered as a record holder at that time, but the author of the description in the article misunderstood the time series. ::: In any cases, the original description might be ambiguous if the time series stated in Saibian's site are correct. ::: p-adic 01:27, November 6, 2019 (UTC)